By Didi Rankovic – Reclaim The Net
The United Nations General Assembly will this week adopt the UN Cybercrime Treaty, with the US expected to be among the countries that support the controversial document.
Opponents will then have to hope that various UN member-states would eventually opt not to sign and ratify the treaty, which has variously been described as “flawed” and all the way to being “a threat to free speech and privacy” and a tool for “transnational oppression.”
Among those opponents are human rights and media organizations, as well as tech companies, while doubts have been expressed even by the UN High Commissioner for human rights, among others.
Yet governments and law enforcement agencies are among the Cybercrime Treaty’s supporters since it opens up the possibility of more effective cross-border cooperation and evidence (including personal data) gathering and sharing.
But, the final text that is about to be adopted, in many parts falls short of what are considered international human rights standards, allowing UN members who sign the document to then choose whether to build a number of these standards into their own implementation.
Here, Western groups and individuals opposing the treaty like to point out to the “usual suspects” around the world who might not do that, and note that the origins of the treaty are in a resolution supported five years ago by Russia, China, Cuba, etc.
However, major Western countries have in the meanwhile “jumped on the bandwagon.” There are two general explanations as to why: one is idealizing these as pure democracies that are backing the treaty simply to be able to make it better, working from the inside.
And then, over the past years, there has been a host of repressive, privacy, and civil rights undermining – including in the context of criminal investigations – laws and proposed bills in places like the EU, but also the US, the UK, Canada.
Perhaps supporting the UN Cybercrime Treaty serves the purpose of being better able to enforce their own “problematic” legislation – protecting free speech has never been high on that particular agenda, quite the contrary.
And so while the outgoing administration has expressed some “concerns,” officials have said the treaty will still have the US vote. Then, it will be up to the new White House to decide what to do with that.